Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Caucasian Hammer, Jan 13, 2008.
Organs to be taken without consent.
i don't like the sound of that
People should be organ doners after death by default. WTF is a corpse gonna do with that liver? Pfft. Just people being idiots. I totally back this decision 100%.
The question is not what a dead person wants with their organs, its whether or not you can assume they want to donate them. Maybe the state should just assume you want to donate 75% of your earnings to the government, after all, it will make life better for other people and what does it matter to you, you still have money to spend.
WTF? That is the worst analogy ever. Being robbed of 75% of your earnings is so different from a surgeon taking useable organs from a cadavre.
For instance; lets say a friend of yours was terminally ill, he badly needed a new heart or something. Obviously live heart doners are hard to come by, since the result in heart extraction typically results in, well, death. But maybe someone passed away who had a heart in great condition and was a perfect candidate for the transplant? How pissed would you be if that person was a selfish arsehole who chose to not be a doner?
That was a kinda long winded example but you get what I mean. Once you're dead, what happens? You get put in a wooden box or burnt to a crisp. What a waste of good organs. Wanna read a better comparison? WHY DO WE RECYCLE?
I totally back this move. Like steve_juneau said, that is a horrible analogy. Having 75% of your estate taken is definitely not the same thing. I think the best option is that the patient has to mention that they opt out of the program, otherwise it will be assumed it is okay to take the organs.
Seriously, youre dead, who cares? Take my organs, otherwise theyre being burnt.
Im with Steve for the most part.
But, what about the fact that you likely won't know the history of everybody who comes in. I find that to be a little off.
But anyways, yeah. On the whole, I don't think is a bad plan. It's not as if you are going to be doing anything with those organs. And yes, JustinL's analogy was awful.
This being said, I am a registered donor, and I see no reason (baring religious beliefs) not to be a donor.
Beggars can't be choosers as they say. I'm all for this plan!:axe:
This argument is up there with those convinced that allowing gay marriages means that you can one day legally marry your dog.
What is to say the person doesn't just hate the world and wants to keep their organs in their body. I am not against organ donors by any means, but just assuming you can take someone's possesions is wrong.
The anaolgy might not be a good one, but most can still live better then others if they take a large salary cut. So lets just take from you with out your consent so someone else can have a better life, its not like you need all of that money anyways.
EDIT: I should clearify, I am all for organ donors and have NO problem with it. I have a problem with someone else making that decision for you. Make the decision part of a form on something most of the country partakes in, like a drivers liscense.
Great now they'll let people die just to harvest their organs.
I'm a donor. When i die, I'm not going to be using any of my parts. I agree with the premiss for the ruling. There are provisions for opting out and family objections. alot of perfectly good organs go to waste waiting for ID or next of kin. i also believe that the family or surviving spouse should get paid for the parts. You know damn well the hospital is charging out the ass for it.
Except the analogy fails in a major way. In your case, the individual is still alive and needs to the money to live. In the case of organ donors, the individual is deceased and therefore not really using the organs anymore.
It's not like the family of the deceased can live off the income generated by the deceased's liver.
I'm a registered donor..... Once I'm dead if they can use my organs then let them....whatever can't be used is gonna get cremated anyway.... What the hell am I gonna use it for? Why would I wanna keep it?.....
They can opt out. I think this sounds a lot worse than it is.
It's just changing the default "setting" from non-donor to donor, thereby making the fools who just never signed up for it viable meat donors.
Seconded, I don't give a shit if it's morally disrespectful to take someone's kidney after they're dead or not; if it's saving someone who's very much alive... it's fucking stupid that they have the choice not to.
Unfortunately, in a money grubbing society, that'll be the case in a few instances, I'm sure.
This is what they call a "no-brainer". I'm amazed that it's been an opt-in thing until now. I don't give a shit what happens to my body after I'm dead, they can take any/all of my organs and throw the rest in the bin for all I care.
I'm not sure why this is even news...if you don't like it, you opt-out, problem solved!
People have the option to opt-out as Wedge pointed out, where is the controversy? If you don't want to give your organs you simply register, done. If you're too lazy or ignorant to do that then your rotten corpse doesn't deserve that liver!
I'm sure Laura Bates has an opinion on this.
Just to add - I like the idea that after I die my body will still be of some use. A kidney here, a liver over there. I could save lives even when I'm deceased. It gives me the warm fuzzies
Or, as JustinL implied; I could die and keep all of my organs to myself and then cut 75% of his wages to pay for my funeral
As long as my corpse doesn't end up as a display in the Body Worlds exhibit, I could care less. It's not like I'm USING those organs after I die! What do I need them for then? (Organ Donor checked on my Driver's License).
Just goes to show, there not one thing you can do in this world that SOMEONE isn't going to come out of the woodwork to oppose it...
Some people aren't donors for religious reasons say JW for example. They don't believe in blood transfusions or organ donations.
I wanted to stay out of this topic, but I've thought about it a bit and both sides have there benefits.
You're always going get people who don't want to donate. How easy will it be to opt out?
On one side yes it would create more donors, on the other side take a look at the history of record keeping by the Labour government so far. They managed to lose 25 million people's bank details the other month. They also lost people's driver license details after that. I've heard of many people's DVLA records being wrong, so they have been riding motorbikes, being stopped by the police only to be told there's no record of them having a license.
I'm not keen on the government holding there records of the people who opt out.
Separate names with a comma.